ORDER G.G. Sohani, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, areas follows: The petitioners were arrested by the police on 18th May, 1974 in connection with an offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. A challan was filed on 27th July, 1974 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Biaora. By an order dated 8th August, 1974 passed by the Magistrate First Class, Biaora, in Criminal Case No. 319/74, the petitioners have been committed to the Court of Sessions, Rajgarh, u/s 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stand trial for an offence u/s 302 Indian Code. The petitioners have been remanded to custody in accordance with the provisions of section 209(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the detention of the petitioners in judicial custody after the expiry of sixty days from 19-5-1974 i.e., the date of arrest is contrary to the provisions of section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be released on bail as their continued detention is illegal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this petition must be dismissed. It is admitted that the investigation in the instant case has been completed and that the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Rajgarh. Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner, is applicable at the stage of investigation. This is very clear from the heading of that section which is as under: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours". As soon as the case is committed to the Court of Session, then the provisions of section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code come into operation and these provisions empower the committing Magistrate to remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial subject to the provisions contained in Chapter XXXIII of the Code relating to bail. Moreover the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 does not provide that after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of the arrest the detention of the accused in judicial custody becomes illegal. Moreover the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 does not provide that after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of the arrest the detention of the accused in judicial custody becomes illegal. All that the said provision lays down is that the accused should be released on bail if he is prepared to and does; furnish bail. On behalf of the petitioner it was admitted that after the expiry of the period of sixty days from the date of their arrest and before the order of commitment no application was made on their behalf for releasing them on bail. Under the circumstances, the detention of the petitioners has not been and is not shown to be illegal. 4. For all these reasons the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed